Time for an official 64-bit version ?

[seagoon]

....I'm usually over 100 fps anyway, even running it from VS.net in debug mode...
It will probably speed up eventually anyway, when 1.0 is released and all of the debugging stuff is taken out.

On my laptop*, running the Scenic v2 route under the latest X-file, I'm getting around 50 - 65 fps consistently.
That's with the player's train (5 locos + 70 cars) and three AI (similar sizes) running off-screen at the same time.

Perfectly acceptable performance for me.

*Toshiba Satellite L750, Windows 7 Pro SP1, CPU i7 2.2GHz, 8Gb RAM, Nvidia GeForce GT525M

[muskokaandtahoe]

IMO it is doubtful that 64 bit would mean much at all to Open Rails but that said it would allow Open Rails to play a bit more nicely with other running apps on that PC and for some folks that could be a real plus.

What might make a big difference to OR is eventually getting to DirectX 11 (Win 7 or later) because that version allows for multiple threads to interact with the GPU. That offers the possibility that rendering could be significantly sped up. FWIW, DirectX 11 also does water, smoke, skies much, much more realistically than DirectX 9 which is used by OR now. But as James has already noted .XNA has to be replaced before moving on DirectX stuff.

Also, somewhere above I noted a positive comment on the volunteers that have created OR. That's good. Somebody did an assessment of the OR code and came away with an estimate of needing $1.5 - $1.6 million dollars to pay people to write the same code. The OR volunteers did their work as a gift to this hobby of ours... a fact I think is forgotten by some when posting feedback.

[neyland]

Hahahahahahaha Brucie the luddite, still the same old loveable can't be told Auzzie.

[twpol]

What is the advantage of having a 64-bit version of ORTS, the 32-bit version working perfectly on my WIN-7 Pro 64-bit i5 computer ?

As you've got a 64bit OS, a 64bit version of Open Rails will be able to take advantage of way more of your RAM than the current 32bit version can. Right now, we're limited to around 1.6GB (2GB is the technical limit) unless you use the LAA version, which gives you up to 3GB on a tweaked 32bit OS and 4GB on an untweaked 64bit OS. A 64bit version would be able to well beyond 4GB - and could probably use all of your RAM if you tried hard enough.

The main reason for needing more RAM accessible to Open Rails is when you use higher-than-default view distances. There are also a number of known inefficiencies in the way we use memory which I hope to address at some point. But access to more memory is always better as it reduces the chance of missing textures (grey objects) and out of memory crashes.

[lindsayts]

A couple of points, May I remind everyone that OR is being developed by VOLUNTEERS who do have lives to leed out side of OR. If anyone who wishes for the development to go in another direction they are quite welcome to pitch in and help. Behaving in a negative way becuase OR is not going the way you wish will solve nothing, EXCEPT a good possibility for some developers to go on to other things (ie stop working on OR) where there work will be more apreciated.

I regard prgramming a train sim is the most difficult of all common simulations due to the amount of knowledge needed to satsify the real railway purists. The team is doing a wonderfull job under difficult and sometimes unapreciated circumstances.

Lindsay

[lindsayts]

Just to declare my position, I run OR on XP pro 32 bit, I have yet to run into memory issues inspite of using quite high viewing distances. This varies though with the route I am running. On the VIctorian North East 1950's a detailed viewing distance of 10 kilometes is used, frame rates going down to around 30 fps in built up areas running well up (80 to 150fps) in the country. For the freeware Bernina Bahn a vewing distance of 4 kilomeres is used, this being dictated soley by frame rate as a vewing distance higher than that will drop the minimum frame rate below 30 fps (normal frame rates 50 to 150 fps). I find OR is perfectly smooth at 30 fps and above.

At this stage (note, at this stage) I can see no great reason to go to all the work that OR requires (Note 1) just to make more memory availible.

Note 1: There are quite important outstanding items that require work, two of them being the Activty editor and more importantly some kind of prelimanary reliable route editor.

Lindsay

[conrail1]

Just to declare my position,

I thought you already declared your position which seems to hinge on you not having the ability to install/purchase a 64-bit version of Windows -


http://www.elvastower.com/forums/ind...s/page__st__40

[OTTODAD]

Thanks James for explaining that !

I just hope that Microsoft with their coming WIN-9 in 2014/15 do not move the goal posts, messing up the W.I.P. code of ORTS !

[OTTODAD]

A couple of points, May I remind everyone that OR is being developed by VOLUNTEERS who do have lives to lead out side of OR. If anyone who wishes for the development to go in another direction they are quite welcome to pitch in and help.

Hopefully not neglecting to spend time with their partners and family before they pull the plug, as has happened to 2 of my Railworks route creator friends !

Behaving in a negative way because OR is not going the way you wish will solve nothing, EXCEPT a good possibility for some developers to go on to other things (ie stop working on OR) where there work will be more appreciated.

Good work is always being appreciated be that Payware or Freeware !

What we report is not NEGATIVE, it is to make the ORTS team aware of what is not working as it should, which is what this forum is mainly for so that all can see it to avoid multiple Launchpad bug reports on the same subject.